DeadStar - Analog shutdown kills pre-'02 OnStar

[Flybrian]

Mayday! Some Cars Will Lose OnStar Link

By KEN BELSON

Published: November 19, 2006

Link to Original Article @ NYTimes

FOR the last decade, OnStar has promoted itself as a paragon of convenience and peace of mind for car owners. Best known for its ability to bail out customers in a jam — and even make an automatic call for help when an air bag has been deployed in an accident — the service has about four million subscribers.

OnStar makes its pitch in a series of alarming radio advertisements that use recordings of actual emergency calls to demonstrate how operators in an OnStar call center are standing by to summon an ambulance, open a car with a child locked inside or track a vehicle that has been stolen. At the push of a button, the operators are available to give directions or to act as concierges, pointing subscribers to the closest gas station or Chinese restaurant.

But the operators will soon be signing off for some of OnStar’s longstanding customers. The dropped connection is a result a little-known decision by the Federal Communications Commission in 2002 that allows cellphone companies to shut down their analog networks beginning in February 2008.

The decision will affect not only mobile phone users in rural America and other places where digital networks have yet to be built, but also hundreds of thousands of subscribers with older cars whose OnStar systems rely on those analog networks. Some subscribers with 2002 model year or newer cars can have their cars converted to digital equipment, or their cars may already be equipped with the needed hardware.

OnStar, which was a $199 option when they bought their vehicles, will become largely obsolete in 15 months in some 2002-4 models, as well as all models before 2002, because the OnStar electronics cannot be upgraded. Some Acura, Audi, Subaru and Volkswagen owners will also be affected.

Verizon Wireless, the network of choice for OnStar, has not said how or when it will dismantle its analog network, though it has not ruled out shutting off the service all at once. More likely, industry analysts say, the networks will be turned off in stages.

That’s cold comfort for Michael Farris. His wife, Vickie, drives a 2002 GMC Yukon and uses OnStar for routing help in unfamiliar areas and to talk hands-free with her cellphone using OnStar’s connection to the truck’s audio system.

The truck has about 40,000 miles on it and runs well, so Mr. Farris wants to keep it beyond 2008. He must now consider whether to sell it, find one of the few aftermarket alternatives, or go without.

“This thing we paid for is going to turn into a pumpkin,” Mr. Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va., said. OnStar’s decision to use analog-only technology “was like putting an eight-track tape player into a new vehicle.”

OnStar’s decision to use analog networks made sense a decade ago when the service was started because they were the most pervasive and reliable. Even as digital networks expanded in recent years — their greater call capacities for a given amount of wireless bandwidth made them attractive to phone companies — analog networks were often the only ones working in rural areas.

Analog’s broader coverage was also a good reason for home security companies like ADT to use the networks, and now they are grappling with the ruling as well. They, like OnStar, tried unsuccessfully to persuade the F.C.C. not to sunset the analog network, the industry term for the phaseout.

OnStar created a Web site to alert customers to the coming changes. But for drivers with older cars, there is little more the company can do.

Critics, Mr. Farris included, say OnStar was negligent in continuing to install analog-only equipment before and after 2002 when it was clear that the phaseout of their supporting networks might be coming.

OnStar declined to make an executive available for this article, but in a statement said, “We at OnStar sincerely regret that we will not be able to provide OnStar service to vehicles with analog-only hardware after Dec. 31, 2007.” When asked why it continued to install equipment that could not be upgraded even after the F.C.C. ruling, the company said that “each vehicle has its own development and manufacturing schedule, not all vehicles will receive the same OnStar equipment at the same time.”

Dealers will upgrade some 2002-4 vehicles to work on digital networks if customers buy a three-year subscription to the Safe and Sound package at $199 a year.

The company would not say how many of its subscribers have analog-only or upgradeable equipment. But as many as half of OnStar’s customers, or two million subscribers, now drive cars that cannot be upgraded, according to Frank Viquez, an industry analyst at ABI Research.

Two-thirds of those cars will be sold or traded by their original purchasers by early 2008, leaving 500,000 to 700,000 OnStar buyers out of luck, Mr. Viquez said. G.M. plans to make OnStar standard in all its cars by the end of 2007. That will be too late for Mr. Farris, though, who feels OnStar and G.M. should have done more, switching to upgradeable technology far sooner.

“Those were $5 business decisions that are going to come back and haunt them,” he said. “It’s going to disillusion a bunch of G.M.’s best customers.”

[Flybrian]

I love GM and all, but we let out OnStar lapse years ago. It was too much to pay for something that simply didn't work when it really, really needed to and frankly at the time, the OnStar reps didn't do much to convince my father its worth it.

[CARBIZ]

I'd be curious to see what the real numbers are for renewals. Of the 4 million subscribers, how many of them actually renewed, as opposed to getting the free service for the first year and then letting it lapse?

Telemetrics are the wave of the future, I believe, and I am glad that GM is way out in front of the pack, but we humans are a strange lot: we will pay for power windows but not to save our lives.

This article was fairly balanced, I'd say. I am surprised that the NY Times doesn't entirely blame GM for not forseeing a time when the analog system was wound down - a decision beyond the scope of GM.

[avant1963]

After my free year, there is no way that I will pay for OnStar. For my lifestyle, where I live/travel and the fact there is always a cell phone on me, it makes no sense.

[CARBIZ]

Like I said, we are strange animals: we will pay for a DVD player in our vans, but not telemetrics to save our life.

Scenario: driving to South Carolina in your Park Avenue. YOur husband has a heart attack behind the wheel and slumps over it. Firstly, you are damned glad you don't have a center console and can get your foot over to the brake and steer the car safely off the interstate. Secondly, where the hell are you? Which exit did you pass? Can you think straight? Can you even find your cell phone? Which pocket? On Star knows exactly where you are. THey can send the paramedics IMMEDIATELY. They can stay on the line and help you through this.

This happened to a customer of mine last year.

I personally had a flat tire on the outskirts of Detroit 10 years ago. I had a cell and I had Roadside. I had to walk for a mile to call them back and tell them which exit I was near.

Just two examples, of the dozens of scenarios that come to mind.

Upside down in a ditch, unconscious, your cell won't help you.

[Flybrian]

  Upside down in a ditch, unconscious, your cell won't help you.

217524[/snapback]

Rammed into a pole four feet from a deep, thick marsh off a two-lane road through rural Florida in one of the worst tunderstorms of the season, OnStar didn't help my father. Some of you may remember me describing that accident that nearly totalled our Bonneville a few years ago. Well, after airbag deployment, OnStar didn't notify jack. In fact, my father called me on his cell phone to let me know he had spun out and told me where to find him. I got dressed, got three friends together (I was at FIT in Melbourne doing flight training at the time), and we all drove the 46 miles before the Osceola County Sheriff arrived. I even asked the deputy if OnStar notified them; he checked with dispatch and told me 'no.'

Our service came up for renewal shortly thereafter and we dropped it. When the operator asked why, my father told her pretty simply that OnStar is junk and doesn't work. He actually spoke to a higher manager and described the incident and OnStar's failure. She told him that it was likely due to the inclement weather and the rural location that OnStar didn't work. Well, isn't that exactly what OnStar is for? The best they offered was to upgrade us to the Concierege Service with 6 months free if we signed up for 12, which was needless to say a retarded offer. We dropped and haven't regreted it.

I'm of the same thinking as Walt on this. I don't need Turn-by-Turn; I have GoogleMaps. I don't need handsfree calling; I have speakerphone. I don't need to know what Thai restaurant is open; I have 411. I don't need to have my car remotely unlocked; I have two sets of keys and I'm not stupid. The only thing I'd ever need OnStar for is to notify 911 of my location in an accident; and it didn't do that.

I know what you might say, that this is just a one-time failure. Well, all it takes its that one time to have a family member be further injured or possibly die.

[Mr.Krinkle]

Regarding the technology being switched when tvs go HD for good the same issues are going to pop up. Music might not be sold on c.d.'s sooner than you think. Its possible. Blue Ray might one day completely replace DVD and HD might die before it even gets out there.

Its all a gamble...look at laser discs.

I have the satellite cable so am not surprised to find out Onstar didnt work in the rain. If i had it for free, sure thats great but i doubt id pay for it.

I can see many people that would however. I think it is a great service to

offer--even if it doesnt work all the time. Sorry to hear about that Fly.

[enzl]

Awful decision to let these customers swing...I don't need to even say what the outcry would be here if it were a co. other than GM....

Gotta keep the old subscribers. One dead or maimed customer will ignite a sh*tstorm....the tech is there. It's clearly a dollars and cents decision, which is depressing.

[Flybrian]

Gotta keep the old subscribers. One dead or maimed customer will ignite a sh*tstorm....the tech is there. It's clearly a dollars and cents decision, which is depressing.

217546[/snapback]

The really old pre-2000 cell phone handset systems. Also, those were mainly on a few uplevel Cadillac models. 2000 and beyond when it was integrated into nearly every midrange and above GM vehicle is beyond unacceptable.

[Croc]

I'm very confused as to why these "cannot" be upgraded. I frankly don't buy it. GM needs to go the extra mile and upgrade them all. Sheer stupidity...

[razoredge]

Typical, the technology world changes everyday..........ya know. Gotta have the latest......ah .........necessity

I remember when the cell phones switched from analog. We had to get new phones. The reception was poor, and the initial sound quality was pathatic.

Look to our government for allowing this and always remember our Federal, State and local governments are run by Idiots that could not make it in the real world and slipped through the cracks.

" little-known decision by the Federal Communications Commission"

[Flybrian]

Don't blame the government; blame the companies that want to shut down the service. Read the article again.

[VenSeattle]

You have to sunset old technology someday. It's not being cut-off immediately either. GM knows how many active analog customers they have on Onstar. Notifications will be sent out. Subscriptions will be cancelled.... etc.

I received some sort of notification regarding this back 6-8 months ago. I contacted my dealership... I can be upgraded. I'll probably take care of it next year.

I don't foresee many people shopping in the $1,500 10 year-old used car market considering a subscription to a $150+ annual service. So whether or not Onstar still functions on your 1997 Century isn't really going to impact what little resale value it has left. GM paying to upgrade a 1997 Century for free, or engineering an upgrade to be available seems almost pointless.

[razoredge]

little-known decision by the Federal Communications Commission in 2002 that allows cellphone companies to shut down their analog networks beginning in February 2008

I dont know? Id say "allows" about covers it. After all, this is comming from a government that has for decades encouraged us to "just say no". Wouldnt it be something to see them impliment the same principles ?

Shelving old technology ? - While its still fully functional and being used ? - - - NO !

Upgradeing ? a questionable word as it stands. Why should a customer have to pay hard earned money to "upgrade" something that has otherwise been working fine ? - - - NO !

Even if a used buyer would not subscribe, a trader would be punished on their residual value, a problem that is already out of hand with a GM vehical. Answer - - - NO !

Its really really simple our government and its many tentacles need to learn how to simply say

NO !

[Flybrian]

You're saying the government is nosing into this analog network deal.

The phone companies want to disband the analog infrastructure, the government prevented them from doing so to maintain service. Now, the government is allowing companies the freedom to do what they want.

Blame the companies.

[razoredge]

the freedom to do what they want.

217644[/snapback]

So now are we allowed to do as we please..........deal drugs, kill our enemies, take what we want ?

Well hell, lets just get rid of the government all together

just say

YES !

We now all have the freedom to do as we please.

[Flybrian]

That post went nowhere. Back to OnStar...

[Mr.Krinkle]

what i got from reading it.

OnStar’s decision to use analog networks made sense a decade ago when the service was started because they were the most pervasive and reliable. analog networks were often the only ones working in rural areas.

Analog’s broader coverage was also a good reason for home security companies like ADT to use the networks

, and now they are grappling with the ruling as well.

They, like OnStar, tried unsuccessfully to persuade the F.C.C. not to sunset the analog network, the industry term for the phaseout.

The cell companies got the mazoolah now and a good lobby. Blame the cos. blame the govt. it doesnt matter.

I do think its a shame some will be unable to upgrade.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[sciguy_0504]

If I was driving in pre-2002 car in 2008 I'd be shopping for a new one, On-Star or not.

[Drew Dowdell]

I can see why Onstar decided to stay with analog as long as they did. Like it or not, analog has far more coverage than any of the digital networks, it's also fairly ubiquitous. An analog phone will work, in an emergency, on any analog network available to it. On the other hand, if you're in an area where only Cingular has GSM service and Verizon's service is spotty and you have a Verizon based Onstar system, you're out of luck. The problem Onstar had was to pick a network that would be most reliable. As many of you know, which network to pick can vary greatly by geographic location. Here in Pittsburgh, we have so much coverage from all the networks that people can pick up signal on their fillings. Conversations with my parents who live in Miami and have Cingular frequently contain the phrase "... hold on, I'm going to lose you in a minute...."

The best move would have been for Onstar to ignore the networks completely and partner with a handset company to make Onstar compatible handsets. Just have the connection be fairly universal using USB or bluetooth. People can pick any network they like at that point.

edit: I wouldn't be surprised to see lawsuits.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[Mr.Krinkle]

I can see why Onstar decided to stay with analog as long as they did. Like it or not, analog has far more coverage than any of the digital networks. It's also fairly ubiquitous. An analog phone will work, in an emergency, on any analog network available to it.  On the other hand, if you're in an area where only Cingular has GSM service and Verizon's service is spotty and you have a Verizon based Onstar system, your out of luck. The problem Onstar has was to pick a network that would be most reliable.  As many of you know, which network to pick can vary greatly by geographic location. Here in Pittsburgh, we have so much coverage from all the networks that people can pick up signal on their fillings. Conversations with my parents who live in Miami and have Cingular frequently contain the phrase "... hold on, I'm going to lose you in a minute...."

The best move would have been for Onstar to ignore the networks completely and partner with a handset company to make Onstar compatible handsets. Just have the connection be fairly universal using USB or bluetooth. People can pick any network they like at that point.

edit: I wouldn't be surprised to see lawsuits.

217873[/snapback]

About the lawsuits--You wouldnt expect your carbureated car refitted with fuel injection. Or have direct injection added. Thats seems frivolous. The technology changed and thats all there is to it. Its sad, and its too bad both systems werent installed but that also is unreasonable...

I do agree though...someone will find a reason to make it a federal case.

[Camino LS6]

Can't say I really care about this, I don't want Onstar in any of my vehicles - ever.

[razoredge]

Here we're still best off with cell one. In the city I imagine all work well. Nextel is a waste of money out here in the country yet. Yes the old analog mobiles worked great.

That post went nowhere. Back to OnStar...

deep as a mud puddle ey ?

If were going to deregulate and let the corporations do as they please.....it should go for everyone. Monkey See / Monkey Do.

I figure if foolish, selfish things are not allowed to happen....the word....blame....never needs to be used. In the end any slight of hand issues fall back to those who are paid to "serve and protect".....or was there an amendment that made that ideal, obsolete ?

[enzl]

About the lawsuits--You wouldnt expect your carbureated car refitted with fuel injection.  Or have direct injection added.  Thats seems frivolous. 

Not even close analogy.

Press button. Expect help.

Lawsuit waiting to happen.

[VenSeattle]

Not even close analogy.

Press button. Expect help.

Lawsuit waiting to happen.

218103[/snapback]

Only if service contract is active (which won't be the case once analog is phased out)... even before then you couldn’t because of % of availability, reliability, and uncontrollable circumstances.

You're acting like you could sue QWEST, SWB, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc because you couldn't make a 911 phone call due to the service was out. Sorry. Not going to happen.

[PurdueGuy]

<<another person who couldn't care less about having onstar. I understand the advantages of it & all, but still would not pay for it. Personally, I'd think it would be a great move if, since GM is putting OnStar in all their vehicles anyway, made the emergency calling on airbag deployment standard for, say, 5 years, even without onstar subscription. Of course they won't, because that's probably the only feature that 80% of the subscribers care about anyway.

[enzl]

Only if service contract is active (which won't be the case once analog is phased out)... even before then you couldn’t because of % of availability, reliability, and uncontrollable circumstances.

You're acting like you could sue QWEST, SWB, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc because you couldn't make a 911 phone call due to the service was out. Sorry. Not going to happen.

218113[/snapback]

It's not a multifunctional phone...its an emergency system.

And even if there's no legal liability, just wait until the press gets hold of a 'child in a wheelchair because GM's Onstar not upgraded. Mom weeping as she tells tale of hours in a ditch pressing button'

If this was any other manufacturer, everyone here would be screaming bloody murder. Incredible that anyone can attempt to diminish the PR negative of this type of decision.

[Camino LS6]

It's not a multifunctional phone...its an emergency system.

And even if there's no legal liability, just wait until the press gets hold of a 'child in a wheelchair because GM's Onstar not upgraded. Mom weeping as she tells tale of hours in a ditch pressing button'

If this was any other manufacturer, everyone here would be screaming bloody murder. Incredible that anyone can attempt to diminish the PR negative of this type of decision.

218191[/snapback]

Except that GM isn't the entity shutting it down. They just need to get out in front of this and put the blame where it belongs.

[Drew Dowdell]

About the lawsuits--You wouldnt expect your carbureated car refitted with fuel injection.  Or have direct injection added.  Thats seems frivolous.  The technology changed and thats all there is to it.  Its sad, and its too bad both systems werent installed but that also is unreasonable...

I do agree though...someone will find a reason to make it a federal case.

217878[/snapback]

One also wouldn't expect one's carburetor to suddenly quit functioning after February 2008 simply because Holly decided to no longer support it.

[razoredge]

One also wouldn't expect one's carburetor to suddenly quit functioning after February 2008 simply because Holly decided to no longer support it.

218206[/snapback]

thats what Im talking about !

[Camino LS6]

H-o-l-l- E -y

:AH-HA_wink:

[Drew Dowdell]

H-o-l-l- E -y 

:AH-HA_wink:

218218[/snapback]

eh, you say tomato I say pomegranate

[VenSeattle]

If this was any other manufacturer, everyone here would be screaming bloody murder. Incredible that anyone can attempt to diminish the PR negative of this type of decision.

218191[/snapback]

Don't even try to play the damn bias card with me trying to support your opinion. You're speaking to an active OnStar customer who will need to have his OnStar equipment upgraded. This isn't blind loyalty. This isn’t GM’s fault. This is reality and it will impact several industries. Analog TV Broadcasting is shutting down as well. Millions of old (even some new) televisions won’t work without some type of converter, etc. You're making too big of a deal with it, and trying to exploit this as some failure on GM’s part. It isn’t.

just wait until the press gets hold of a 'child in a wheelchair because GM's OnStar not upgraded. Mom weeping as she tells tale of hours in a ditch pressing button'

That scenario could happen at any time because there are hundreds of thousands of GM vehicles driving around without an active subscription to OnStar. If OnStar is that much of a necessity, then every manufacturer who doesn't provide OnStar should be liable and accountable for not providing an emergency notification service.

If you don't recall, a similar situation has already occurred… but by MANUFACTURER DECISION. You don’t see lawsuits from Lincoln owners against Ford because the RESCU program was dropped and is no longer available for subscription.

Face it - OnStar is a voluntary subscription service with a contract. If the contract is cancelled, becomes expired, or the service is no longer available, that’s just life.

[Mr.Krinkle]

One also wouldn't expect one's carburetor to suddenly quit functioning after February 2008 simply because Holly decided to no longer support it.

218206[/snapback]

O.k. but they would be &#036;h&#33; out of luck if they could no longer find the parts for their Holley. So what then? Sue them, too?

I admit I exaggerated an analaogy to illustrate a point. I could have said airbags, or antilock brakes...its just an illustrated point and out of context, without noting that

the technology changed

is incomplete as i stated.

It not GM's fault and to suggest I or someone else would feel differently if it was another manufacturer is just plain ol bs.

Besides I looked real hard in the 07 Camry and I couldnt find an Onstar button anywhere. F*ckin Toyota.

[Drew Dowdell]

Besides I looked real hard in the 07 Camry and I couldnt find an Onstar button anywhere.    F*ckin Toyota.

218243[/snapback]

It also wouldn't be a $199 line item on that Camry's window sticker.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[enzl]

Don't even try to play the damn bias card with me trying to support your opinion. You're speaking to an active OnStar customer who will need to have his OnStar equipment upgraded. This isn't blind loyalty. This isn’t GM’s fault. This is reality and it will impact several industries. Analog TV Broadcasting is shutting down as well. Millions of old (even some new) televisions won’t work without some type of converter, etc. You're making too big of a deal with it, and trying to exploit this as some failure on GM’s part. It isn’t.

That scenario could happen at any time because there are hundreds of thousands of GM vehicles driving around without an active subscription to OnStar. If OnStar is that much of a necessity, then every manufacturer who doesn't provide OnStar should be liable and accountable for not providing an emergency notification service. 

If you don't recall, a similar situation has already occurred… but by MANUFACTURER DECISION. You don’t see lawsuits from Lincoln owners against Ford because the RESCU program was dropped and is no longer available for subscription.

Face it - OnStar is a voluntary subscription service with a contract. If the contract is cancelled, becomes expired,  or the service is no longer available, that’s just life.

218238[/snapback]

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../611210362/1148

I'm just calling it like I see it.

A Toyota recall gets you guys all up in arms....I could only imagine what this piece of news would stir up.

I stand by my statement and have read nothing that alters my opinion that this is a PR disaster waiting to happen....

And just for those here that do not know me...My living is dependant upon GM's success. Constructive criticism is something that GM could use alot more of. You want to provide "fresh ideas for a better GM"?, or "Lets be the best cheerleaders we can be" or "let's defend bonehead moves becasue that's what they want to hear"

How about calling the planning on this OnStar issue what it is?: A HUGE mistake!

We have dozens of customers that either require updates or have vehicles which cannot be updated. They are not entirely wrong to demand answers, are they? What do I tell them? Tough Sh!t?

Take the rose colored glasses off, boys. It's do or die time at the General. They should at least get the benefit of real feedback.

[Croc]

Fact is, GM should allow all its customers an upgrade/retrofit opportunity at the discretion of the customer.

I'm sorry, but WHY can't GM upgrade analog-only customers with dual or digital only equipment? They have over a year to find some kind of retrofit, and since many models became dual NOT at the start of an all-new model, I highly doubt it is physically impossible to take an analog-only and at the very least make it dual through a physical equipment upgrade.

I'm just trying to fathom what pathetic excuse GM will hide behind on this one..."newer equipment won't fit in a vehicle?" Then install one of those little transmitters on the roof of the car! These older OnStar customers were the ones with the antennae that would fall off the rear windshield, so I KNOW OnStar can be attached to a vehicle.

Unless someone with some insider technical knowledge can prove to me it is impossible to install new OnStar equipment, I'm not going to believe this.

Does OnStar never break? Does the equipment never become fried? What has GM done then in those cases? Just said "Oops, you no longer can have OnStar?" B.S.!

[Mr.Krinkle]

I dont see it as a pr nightmare and Im going to respectfully disagree with you.

The most apt analogy would have to be concerning the switch to HD.  I dont think sony, panasonic, or the US govt are sweating lawsuits over it.  No matter how cranky people get without their television.

I would have to know for a fact that GM used the technology knowing it would become useless after x amount of years.  I would also have to know they didnt put up a fight (with ADT among others)--which evidentally they did.

It is a reasonable, albeit unfortunate consequence of expanding technology.

Its not an issue on the newer models and that was part of my initial point.

It by no means should be the disaster you think it will be.

  It also wouldn't be a $199 line item on that Camry's window sticker.

If you bought a pair of shoes and the soles wore out --but you feel you had fair use out of them...thats it. Time for a new pair. If people really like their onstar they will not switch to a different make of car because they will still want that feature. And youre talking anywhere from 5-11 years of a useful service.

Good luck finding a cell phone that lasts that long. Or a computer.

Think of those poor bastards who bought a laserdisc or a video phone.

I would feel much differently about this if included this years models, last years, and the year before that.

one last thought--if someones contract expires and their Onstar is void--and they are in a ditch still pressing a button and waiting for help...thats just sad. Its appealing to sympathy and not much else. I liked the cell phone with no service while calling 911 mentioned above. Im all for accountability but it should be placed where it belongs.

Don't even try to play the damn bias card with me trying to support your opinion. You're speaking to an active OnStar customer who will need to have his OnStar equipment upgraded. This isn't blind loyalty. This isn’t GM’s fault. This is reality and it will impact several industries. Analog TV Broadcasting is shutting down as well. Millions of old (even some new) televisions won’t work without some type of converter, etc. You're making too big of a deal with it, and trying to exploit this as some failure on GM’s part. It isn’t.

That scenario could happen at any time because there are hundreds of thousands of GM vehicles driving around without an active subscription to OnStar. If OnStar is that much of a necessity, then every manufacturer who doesn't provide OnStar should be liable and accountable for not providing an emergency notification service.

If you don't recall, a similar situation has already occurred… but by MANUFACTURER DECISION. You don’t see lawsuits from Lincoln owners against Ford because the RESCU program was dropped and is no longer available for subscription.

Face it - OnStar is a voluntary subscription service with a contract. If the contract is cancelled, becomes expired, or the service is no longer available, that’s just life

Edited November 21, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[enzl]

Face it - OnStar is a voluntary subscription service with a contract. If the contract is cancelled, becomes expired, or the service is no longer available, that’s just life

218268[/snapback]

Unless, of course, its your life or a loved one's.

It's my personal belief that OnStar tech has been grossly mismanaged from the beginning, turning a potential windfall of residual payments into a half-assed program that excused/delayed getting highly profitable SatNav options into most GM products--there should have been real-time traffic integration years ago.

This analogue switch is just the icing on the cake.

[Croc]

I dont see it as a pr nightmare and Im going to respectfully disagree with you.

The most apt analogy would have to be concerning the switch to HD.  I dont think sony, panasonic, or the US govt are sweating lawsuits over it.  No matter how cranky people get without their television.

218268[/snapback]

Agreed, this is the most apt analogy, especially since converters will be made available for the older TVs. I have no problem with older OnStar customers having to get an upgrade or new equipment installed...even for a price (if original contract has expired). But to offer nothing whatsoever is just retarded.

[PurdueGuy]

Anyone able to find out about how many current OnStar subscribers there are that will lose service? I bet you'd all have different things to say if it were only a few hundred or something. lol It seems like OnStar is the kind of frivilous option (well, was an option) that more wealthy buyers get (used to get). Those are the kinds of buyers that would have a new car by now... and the less wealthy owners of those used cars likely for the most part did not re-subscribe...

Edited November 22, 2006 by PurdueGuy

[rkmdogs]

Face it - OnStar is a voluntary subscription service with a contract. If the contract is cancelled, becomes expired,  or the service is no longer available, that’s just life.

218238[/snapback]

You are forgetting an important fact. GM sold these people a piece of equipment

that they knew would no longer operate at some finite time.

That is theft by deception!

If they told the people that this service would no longer work with the equipment

they were buying, how many people would have then forked over the $199.??

If the people had been informed, and allowed to make an informed choice,

then GM's hands would be clean....... but not now!!!

[VenSeattle]

You are forgetting an important fact. GM sold these people a piece of equipment

that they knew would no longer operate at some finite time.

That is theft by deception!

If they told the people that this service would no longer work with the equipment

they were buying, how many people would have then forked over the $199.??

If the people had been informed, and allowed to make an informed choice,

then GM's hands would be clean....... but not now!!!

218582[/snapback]

Most current owners with the cars that have outdated OnStar systems either purchased the car used or the vehicle came with OnStar (plus one year of free service) standard. The one year of free service more than made up for any type of $199 fee you're thinking of.

Besides, GM isn't controlling the phase out. It's not their decision.

Was GM committed to NEVER change or evolve OnStar or its mechanics after launching it in the mid 1990's?

Nope... There are new GM cars with the new system available at your local GM store. If you want OnStar, it's still available. If you're that bitter over it, then you can buy a competitor without it. Great logic there.

---

Do companies stop supporting old technology. You betcha.

[VenSeattle]

I'm just calling it like I see it. A Toyota recall gets you guys all up in arms

Sorry Enzl, but you're just as guilty of having pre-conceived ideas/opinions and the habit to generalize & stereotype as anyone you want to scream Bias at on C&G. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t justify an attempt to discredit their opinion by accusing them of being biased. Regardless of how you want to see it, try coming up with a better argument instead of beating a dead horse.

Considering your “living dependency,” you should be relieved there are GM owners who use OnStar that don’t find this to be a big issue. Instead you’re arguing about it in a public forum with some of those very owners attempting to get them upset over the ordeal. Gee… that’s rational and objective.

It's my personal belief that OnStar tech has been grossly mismanaged from the beginning, turning a potential windfall of residual payments into a half-assed program that excused/delayed getting highly profitable SatNav options into most GM products--there should have been real-time traffic integration years ago.

Your bitterness about OnStar (in general) finally surfaced in your last post, and clearly shows that your overreaction to this situation is based on more than just the "analog phase-out" issue. A Typical OnStar subscriber won’t be suffering from the same ill will over Satellite Navigation, Real-Time Traffic, GM management decisions, etc that you are when they come in to check if they can be upgraded.

Unless, of course, its your life or a loved one's.

Once again, you’re twisting the truth and OVER DRAMATIZING. The owner of the GM vehicle will know if they have an active OnStar subscription service or not. Even if the service was available, the driver may/may not have voluntarily subscribed to the service.

PurdueGuy brings up another valid issue: Do you know OnStar’s customer subscription service count on vehicles over 5 years old? 10 years old? It’s possible this will impact a far less amount of OnStar subscribers than you assume.

[Mr.Krinkle]

You are forgetting an important fact. GM sold these people a piece of equipment

that they knew would no longer operate at some finite time.

That is theft by deception!

If they told the people that this service would no longer work with the equipment

they were buying, how many people would have then forked over the $199.??

If the people had been informed, and allowed to make an informed choice,

then GM's hands would be clean....... but not now!!!

218582[/snapback]

By virtue of the fact alone that this does not include models in the last 6 years in the least its unreasonable to solely blame GM. Theres a degree of fair use and that doesnt change with anything. Cassettes, pentiums, socks, c.d's, laserdiscs...t-shirts . vacuum tubes. or valves. ...whatever you want to call it. ...

Anyone living in 2006 realizes nothing is going to last forever.

The effects of this will be so minuscule I'd be surprised if anything even ever came of this.

Do you know what its like finding an rca valve? Those bastards. I want my &#036;h&#33; to sound good jack> you know what I mean?

Seriously, who gives a sh*t?

besides the hungry

pregnant (or with small children.)

safety conscious (esp w/ocd)--diagnostically speaking.

confused

elderly

handicapped

diabetic

anemic

perpetually lost

. Wouldnt want to find out any other way my airbag wasnt

working- or the abs, engine, trans, airbags if I was that concerned as not to be.

Fear sells.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[enzl]

Sorry Enzl, but you're just as guilty of having pre-conceived ideas/opinions and the habit to generalize & stereotype as anyone you want to scream Bias at on C&G. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t justify an attempt to discredit their opinion by accusing them of being biased. Regardless of how you want to see it, try coming up with a better argument instead of beating a dead horse.

Considering your “living dependency,” you should be relieved there are GM owners who use OnStar that don’t find this to be a big issue. Instead you’re arguing about it in a public forum with some of those very owners attempting to get them upset over the ordeal. Gee… that’s rational and objective.

Your bitterness about OnStar (in general) finally surfaced in your last post, and clearly shows that your overreaction to this situation is based on more than just the "analog phase-out" issue. A Typical OnStar subscriber won’t be suffering from the same ill will over Satellite Navigation, Real-Time Traffic, GM management decisions, etc that you are when they come in to check if they can be upgraded. 

Once again, you’re twisting the truth and OVER DRAMATIZING. The owner of the GM vehicle will know if they have an active OnStar subscription service or not. Even if the service was available, the driver may/may not have voluntarily subscribed to the service.

PurdueGuy brings up another valid issue: Do you know OnStar’s customer subscription service count on vehicles over 5 years old? 10 years old? It’s possible this will impact a far less amount of OnStar subscribers than you assume.

218606[/snapback]

I can't argue that my point of view is just that, mine! However, I have dealt with unhappy customers calling regarding their unhappiness. My point is more along the lines of GM not managing this Onstar program correctly, and the elimination of millions of potential residual users is valid, given that GM is desperate for revenue in any form.

As far as bias goes, please refer to any of the 'Other Guys' recall postings to verify that this board takes a vastly different approach to others' foibles.

And, please feel free to disagree with me....that's what makes this place great. I just don't see the loss of a safety feature on millions of vehicles being a positive....

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Nice to see the article was based on GM, yet includes MANY other vehicles...

Biased ass news, as usual

[FAPTurbo]

It's not the greatest PR, but I'd have to see the numbers of people who lose it to make a real judgment call.

I hate to measure this impact using numbers, because a dissatisfied customer is a dissatisfied person, and this move could mean that buyer may never buy a GM again.

[daves87rs]

Agreed, this is the most apt analogy, especially since converters will be made available for the older TVs.  I have no problem with older OnStar customers having to get an upgrade or new equipment installed...even for a price (if original contract has expired).  But to offer nothing whatsoever is just retarded.

218413[/snapback]

Agreed. Offering choices would be a smart idea. They might be surprised how many will pick it up, even if they have to pay for it...

[daves87rs]

It's not the greatest PR, but I'd have to see the numbers of people who lose it to make a real judgment call.

I hate to measure this impact using numbers, because a dissatisfied customer is a dissatisfied person, and this move could mean that buyer may never buy a GM again.

221281[/snapback]

Oh well, that's too bad...

If if it's not that-it could be something else...you can't please everyone all the time,

no matter what you do.

I can't believe people are going to make a big deal out of it...

As long as GM offers some options, then they have done what they can.

It's just like the guy with the 10 year old Dell computer who going to be real pissed that he can't upgrade to windows vista...You gotta change with the Tech...

It's the new way of life...

I think Onstar is pretty pointless, unless you do a heck of a lot of driving..

My buddy who was killed by a drunk driver had Onstar...and you see what good

it did him...

Onstar only really works with a small part of the population...